You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-02-19 18:48
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-15 10:56
Chairman Markey's newly introduced net neutrality bill should more aptly be called "The Google Welfare Act of 2008."
Let us cut through all the platitudes, spin, fluff and distractions in this bill of which there are many. Let us also remember the useful phrase: "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Why would the Markey bill trigger a cascade of new Internet regulations?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-02-14 12:07
Given the flurry of comments to the FCC on the FreePress petition on Comcast's network management due yesterday, I produced a new NetCompetition one-pager on Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management. I find the one-page format is useful to crystalize my thinking and boil my thoughts down most succinctly.
The primary conclusions in the one pager are:
For those who don't want to use the one-page format or link above, I have copied the full text below:
Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management Net Neutrality has an inherent bias against network management.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-13 12:18
For Immediate Release
Contact: Scott Cleland
February 13, 2008
202-828-7800 Markey Net Neutrality Bill is “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”
WASHINGTON – Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, today released the following statement regarding Representative Ed Markey’s proposed net neutrality bill:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-02-05 18:03
Many have missed the high significance of the NTIA Commerce Department report: "Networked Nation: Broadband in America."
First, this official United States Government report represents the consensus policy thinking and sign-off of all the many parts of the United States Government involved in setting United States broadband policy, including but not limited to: NTIA, FCC, FTC, USTR, CEA, OMB, OSTP, and the Federal Departments of Commerce, Treasury, State, Justice, and Agriculture.
Second, this is the first and only official and comprehensive U.S. Executive Branch assessment of U.S. broadband strategy/policy and of U.S. progress in deploying broadband. Broadband critics can no longer say there is no official or clear U.S. Government broadband policy, because here it is:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-30 19:17
Please don't miss the new NetCompetition.org one-pager I produced on the politics of net neutrality.
I make the case that net neutrality is:
I made it available at the Internet Caucus event today.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-01-28 11:46
In a stunningly naive, parochial, and innacurate opinion piece, "Keeping a lid on broadband," Computerworld national correspondent Kevin Mitchell has scathing criticism of current free market communications policies (that by the way were modeled after the computer sector's free market and innovation successes) and calls for government bureaucrats to regulate most everything of import in the communications sector.
I am stunned that in the journalistic "world of computers" there could be such a naive and parochial view of the real-world ramifications of technological and digital convergence -- the rapidly blurring lines between computing, communications and storage. Mr. Mitchell writes like the tech sector and computing in general is an impregnable and immutable island that should forever be insulated and protected from competitive and market forces occuring outside the tech sector.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-15 10:57
Common sense dictates that the FCC will rule in favor of the critical necessity of broadband network management and against the FreePress and Vuze petitions which claim that prioritizing p2p traffic is an unlawful violation of the FCC's network neutrality principles.
The common sense case why network management trumps net neutrality:
First, the petitions violate common sense because the petitions are based on a false predicate and presumption. The petitions assume that the FCC's policy of network neutrality principles have the legal and binding effect of formal FCC rules or law and that they trump all existing law and rules. This is preposterous. Just because the petitioners make an impassioned and PR-manipulative plea for that view -- does not mean their petition holds any water.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-12-13 10:43
While I am a frequent and usually appreciative reader of CNet's Declan McCullagh Iconoclast column, I have to challenge Declan's recent piece "House Republican targets Google on Privacy Grounds" when he questions the motives of the Senior Republican of the House Commerce Committee for caring about privacy in the Google-DoubleClick merger, when Declan and CNET did not disclose that Declan's wife now works for Google.
I was also surprised and dismayed that Declan's post included a CNet chart from August to try and put Google in the best light on privacy but did not mention the other side of the coin -- that Privacy International study recently ranked Google as worst in the world on privacy issues.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-12 17:13
Larry Downes produced an outstanding analysis for ZDNet today which he entitled "Save Internet Freedom -- From Regulation."
I strongly recommend it as it is one of the most cogent and persuasive pieces I have read in a long time on the subject.
He does a great service by putting the issue into much clearer context -- vis-a-vis other industries and past attempts to regulate where the government shouldn't have.